-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
2020 Democratic Presidential Primary | OT | Hickenlooper makes it to the debate
- Thread starter pigeon
- Start date
- Status
xanax is one of the premiere pharmaceutical drugs on the market pfizer is the company that makes them. it's awful (and really dumb) to cozy up to one of the biggest pharmaceutical companies in the world given everything that's happening with prescription drugs in America. oh and by the way xanax (and all of the other benzos on the market) are one of the most abused and over-prescribed drugs in the world, have led to countless deaths (I don't have enough fingers and toes for the people in my circle that have been affected), and much like opiates most addictions start because of a legal prescription and whew boy is it easy as hell to get one of those. I'd say you have some research to do.
either way it's an awful move from gillibrand any way you slice it
Why on earth would you want to make it so someone is less beholden to the party (which is very very liberal) when it comes to SCOTUS noms?
Pfizer executive. I actually had to delete my initial response after clicking through.
The small-donor-only path isn't viable for most candidates and it REALLY isn't viable for someone polling 1%.
No, needing to reduce reliance on gas-fueled vehicles does not mean we need to remove people's ability to own their own car. And no, it would not remove the need for car insurance, because otherwise people who don't drive are paying for it for people who do! (something which does NOT apply to health insurance) Bring this up to any person and their response will be "Fuck that commie bullshit" and for once they won't be wrong!
OP
OP
Pfizer is not hosting the event! But that's what the tweet is designed to make you think. Its one of their executives, whose side gig is fundraising high-level donations for Democrats.
Let me preface this by saying I have no real issue with Bernie Sanders.
The explanation that he only voted for the 94 crime bill to enact the Violence Against Women Act is a gross oversimplification.
I for one do not think it's honest to praise one politician for being pragmatic and then evolving on an issue, while blasting another for flip-flopping or pandering - this often came up in 2016 when people would compare Clinton to Sanders.
I will say that Biden's recent comments about the 94 crime bill have not always been great, though he did acknowledge recently (as in a few weeks ago) the problems it caused:
yeah I know, the tweet literally said that word for word
"Pfizer executive to host 2020 presidential fundraiser for Democrat Kirsten Gillibrand"
I'm not sure how that applies to my post. I'm not talking about gas fueled vehicles. I'm talking about the complete removal of owning cars for getting around (not for say racing on race tracks). We're talking about self driving cars in relation to lessening the burden of the current living wage. There are a lot of expenses related to the ownership of cars like increased taxes for policing the population for safety. I'm trying to tie that idea with Yang's idea that automation completely demolishing many jobs will need to be supplemented by UBI so that they can maintain basic necessities.
just wut
I'm more hopeful of the fact that the exchange of ideas will lead to more exciting platforms next election cycle. There's some great ideas going to be floating around. In comparison, the republican side is just going to be Jurassic Park.
Yeah that person is an EXECUTIVE at Pfizer who is helping Gillibrand fundraise. You think that shit is not going to affect her outlook one of the big pharmaceutical companies even if they aren't directly giving her money.
a) Self-driving cars are not happening in mass amounts in the near future. They are far, far further out than people initially expected and that's going to lead to consequences- we're not gonna be seeing the world of Upgrade, let alone Minority Report for quite some time.
b) Public confiscation and collective ownership of vehicles is straight up not going to happen. People would riot.
She cosponsored an anti prescription price gouging bill just two weeks ago- https://www.brown.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/brown-gillibrand-announce-legislation-to-protect-americans-from-prescription-drug-price-gouging
But no, I don't think politicians fundamentally change their ideology in response to raw donors- not from bundlers or a millionaire maxing out at 2700- their deviations are going to come less from donors and more from local constituent pressures- it's why Cory Booker is consistently so bad on that specific subset of issues (14 of the 20 biggest Pharma companies are HQ'd there to provide Princeton Plainsboro hospital with enough meds to satisfy their lead diagnostician), why Kamala Harris's housing plan is pretty poopy (Cali's Prop 13 makes it a nightmare for her to actually go aggro on the issue while she still needs those Cali votes on Super Tuesday) and why Bernie Sanders is so shitty on guns (because Vermont is the second most white, second most rural state in the nation).
Last edited:
Great interview with Mayor Pete on The Takeaway today, the extended interview will be on the Politics with Amy Walter podcast. The only answer I don't like from him, at least in the short interview, is his take on the EC.
Short version: https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/gaming-field-2020-pete-buttigieg
Short version: https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/gaming-field-2020-pete-buttigieg
"Yeah, Amazon is bad, but it's either going to be in New York or another state. Cuomo wanted it in his state for the jobs it would create. Obviously it's not ideal but realistically/honestly what would you do in that situation?"
The issues being raised re: Amazon were primarily about housing supply issues, something which is not going to be an issue in Vermont.
You seem to have not read my post correctly. I raised the question "Doesn't this make it more imperative we go that way?" Not from a sense of some realistic take from this current year 2019, but more so based on need in an ideal/theoretical world. You stating whether it's realistic or not is just irrelevant to the discussion.
We're talking about automation creating massive job loss (food prep, trucking, retail, etc...) with no real way to give those people another job. And so I simply raised that question in this distant bleak theoretical world needing any softening to the cost of basic necessities.
So frankly, people rioting in that world is going to happen regardless. Them losing their ownership of vehicles is just so minuscule of a concern when faced with that bleak future and it's more probable that they riot for lack of income to provide for themselves and their family.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Bernie+Personal+Attacks
Now, the game you will play is "Oh those are not personal attacks"
As if calling Hillary unqualified is not a personal attack.
So, i'll preempt that and ask for attacks by Hillary that WOULD fit your guidelines.
Saying Bernie never attacked Hillary personally is absurd, and this is far more a response than your query deserves.
I'm not defending Pfizer, just the legit uses of the medication.
team Harris if that happens
hopefully the people around Bernie use the internet
Watch him only announcer her after he wins (if he does) the primary
I'd be pissed. I think Bernie is better than that though
The most important part of Warren's campaign is her policy brain. We don't need her as the nominee in order to leverage it.
In a world with self-driving vehicles, you don't need to ban private ownership of them! There's no good rationale for removing them other than "I want to". There are far better ways of reducing inequality than going "ok no one gets cars".
That would lead to an amazing campaign song
Y'all in the US dont have campaign songs right? Chile had basically a song fight in the 1970 election and it was amazing
Yeah, I'm really impressed by the proposals we're seeing from everyone.
Like I'm not a fan of Booker at all, but his baby bonds idea is awesome and would almost eliminate the racial wealth disparity all on its own.
Next Republican primary on the other hand is just going to be more "I AM AGAINST EVERYTHING THE DEMOCRATS ARE DOING AND HAVE NO ORIGINAL IDEAS, FUCK MUSLIMS" figurative dick-waving. (who am I kidding, by that point it'll be literal)
probably some libertarian party nut, otherwise no
unfortunately i think that particular issue is still a good 10-20 years away from mainstream awareness, much less majority approval
I would actually withhold my vote for a ticket involving Tulsi (though I'm in CA, so that's a very privileged position). Also, that would be a shit storm of massive proportions, my god.
I dunno dude had to pretend he didn't endorse Tim Canova
And Turner has input
And well
https://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2016/07/bernie_sanders_backer_nina_tur.html
The "smear" btw is Dean saying that Gabbard has flexible morals.
I'd 100% believe Turner would push for Gabbard
The word "shitshow" was invoked yesterday for a reason.
Lmao, a ton of people fear his running because he is likely to get #metoo'd I wouldn't bother defending his person.
Automation will not help reduce traffic, densifying our cities and increasing public transit by several times we have now are the only remedies to it.
I know.
Turner being involved means I expect the exact same shit that turned me off the Sanders campaign.
Oh lord, hiring Nina already looked like a big ol' red flag but seeing her support seals it. Bernie needs to drop West before her cancer spreads.
- Status